Dr. Johnson

The offender was convicted on two counts of possessing child pornography under separate informations.

The first offence occurred in December 2013 when police discovered 10,613 images and 257 videos on the offender's computer, depicting pre-pubescent males as young as age six.

While on bail with conditions prohibiting computer access, the offender committed a second offence in November 2015, possessing approximately 700 sexually explicit images and videos on a cell phone.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 16 months and 18 months custody respectively, followed by 3 years probation on each count, along with mandatory sex offender registration for life, DNA sampling, and a 15-year prohibition order under section 161.

The applicant, who has strabismus, was denied the opportunity to continue in the application process for a police constable position because he failed to meet the stereo acuity vision standard.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the standard was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondents failed to establish it as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The evidence did not demonstrate that the standard was reasonably necessary to ensure the safe performance of police driving duties.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Results, and directed the respondents to cease relying on the standard.

The appellant appealed a six-year sentence imposed following convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats against his separated spouse.

The appellant argued the sentencing judge erred by denying credit for strict pre-trial bail, improperly using a victim impact statement, rejecting remorse as a mitigating factor, and imposing a sentence outside the appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in principle and concluding the sentence was fit given the egregious and horrific circumstances of the domestic assault.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action arising from the death of the patient due to a pulmonary embolism following arthroscopic knee surgery.

The appellants argued the respondent orthopaedic surgeon was negligent in failing to warn the patient about the symptoms of a pulmonary embolism upon discharge.

The trial judge found the respondent met the standard of care, as the patient was not at a heightened risk of a pulmonary embolism at the time of discharge.

The Court of Appeal (majority) dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and application of the standard of care.

The appellant pleaded guilty to carrying a weapon, unlawful confinement, and assault against his former girlfriend.

He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

He appealed the sentence, arguing he should have been permitted to serve it in the community.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred in assigning sole responsibility for delay to the appellant and in treating his initial minimization of the offence as an aggravating factor, the refusal of a conditional sentence was ultimately correct given the planned nature of the offence, the use of a weapon, and the significant psychological harm to the victim.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Board had issued a split decision regarding the appellant's security level and privileges.

The Court of Appeal found that while the case was complex and there was some ambiguity in the evidence, the majority's reasons were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court noting that a fresh review hearing was scheduled shortly where the appellant's needs and progress could be reassessed.